From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 878DF994B3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:04:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6276511FA1 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:04:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:04:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9358A437D0 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:04:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <a57d2912-6781-403f-8e14-3b0e4b2995c5@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:04:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Philipp Hufnagl <p.hufnagl@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20231115160042.177037-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <20231115160042.177037-5-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <6fcfa1ac-6796-48a3-8942-9b548be31c98@proxmox.com> <55edb79e-7276-4612-9961-c297e15bdb33@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <55edb79e-7276-4612-9961-c297e15bdb33@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.078 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage v2 4/4] pbs: fix #5008: Check if datastore and namespace is valid on add- and update hooks X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:04:49 -0000 Am 16.11.23 um 11:45 schrieb Philipp Hufnagl: > > I was trying to order the commits in a way that, while they are > changing the code, the should not impact the behavior of the program. > It should be possible to apply all previous commits without modifying > the behavior. > > If it is easier or maintainers, I can attempt to implement the fix > first, then the clean up after IMHO, preparatory patches should be required for the fix or make it easier to get to the fix. If it's an optimization that requires a few changes, it's better done as a follow-up. Of course there are exceptions to this. From my side, you don't have to go out of your way and re-do it for this series.